Judge rules against camera

He said that using the device is unconstitutional.
THE VINDICATOR
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
GIRARD -- Richard Naples, who lives near the Girard/Niles border, once received a ticket from the automated camera device set up to catch speeders here, but he vowed never to pay it.
Now, Naples has a court ruling to back up that vow.
Judge John M. Stuard of Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas ruled that use of the camera device is in violation of the Ohio Constitution.
In his ruling Thursday, the judge also ordered the city to discontinue use of the camera unless it is used in accordance with criminal laws set forth by the state instead of the civil penalties assessed under the city's ordinance.
Girard also cannot collect any outstanding fines under the civil ordinance drafted by the city.
Naples said those traveling through Girard should not drive above the speed limit, but those who do should not get a civil citation in the mail from an automated machine. He said those who paid the $85 citations are the victims.
"I am just glad it is gone," he said. "I think this was an injustice to those people who got the tickets and actually paid."
The court's decision comes as the result of a class-action lawsuit filed by Atty. Jim Denney on behalf of Councilman Dan Moadus against Maryland-based Traffipax, the camera's owner and operator. The class-action suit had been limited to those who had been cited and did not pay the fine.
Representatives of Traffipax did not return calls seeking comment Thursday. It is not known if the company plans to appeal the court's decision.
Earlier ruling
Judge Stuard, in a decision in January, ordered that all fines collected from citations issued by the camera from the date of that ruling be put into an interest-bearing escrow account. It is unclear if the city will be made to reimburse the funds held in escrow.
Moadus said he is extremely happy with the ruling. He said the loss of potential revenue from the camera should not hurt the city financially because the city had not incorporated use of those funds into its plans.
He said the additional money would have been nice but not at the expense of citizens' rights.
"I felt confident in our case, and we have prevailed," he said. "I hope this puts communities in Ohio and beyond on notice that if you are looking for quick financial solutions, that is fine, but you cannot trample on people's rights to do it."
In his ruling, Judge Stuard said use of the camera is in violation of the constitution, specifically in that it is in conflict with general state laws that govern traffic.
The ruling said state statutes take precedence over local ordinances when ordinances are in conflict with state law, when an ordinance is an exercise of police power rather than local self-government, and when the state statute is determined to be a "general law."
Attorneys for Traffipax had argued that the various speeding-related statutes set forth by the state were not general laws. Judge Stuard rejected that argument, citing case law that determined a statute setting speed limits throughout the state is a general law.
In the ruling, Judge Stuard dismissed the Traffipax attorneys' claim that the city's ordinance represents an exercise of self government as "little more than wordplay." The judge said the ordinance clearly represents an exercise in police power.
Judge Stuard also determined that the ordinance is in conflict with established state statutes by decriminalizing speeding and attaching civil penalties in lieu of criminal punishment.
Local reactions
Mayor James Melfi said whether or not the company decides to appeal, the camera will not be on city streets today. He said some residents disliked the use of the camera, and others appreciated having the device, but the city will follow the court's ruling.
"The camera has brought mixed results. It has slowed traffic, and in that respect been very successful. But, anytime you do anything new you can bring disruption to your organization, and the camera certainly has done that," Melfi said.
Demetrio Minniti, manager at Jib Jab Hot Dog Shoppe here, said local business owners will be glad to see the camera leave town.
Minniti at one time kept a list of patrons from surrounding communities who would not come to his business as long as the camera was taking photos. He said one patron told him he would not come to the hot dog restaurant if it cost him $85.75 for a hot dog -- the price for one hot dog and the cost of the citation.
"I know it is much-needed money for the city, but this has been rough on commerce in the city," Minniti said. "I think this is good news for businesses in the city. The camera definitely slowed down traffic, but it slowed down commerce, too."
jgoodwin@vindy.com